In current GigaOm analysis, we evaluated whether or not there was argument to make use of a single safety companion to guard a company or if a number of “better of breed” options are nonetheless the way in which to go.
We checked out two use instances. Microsoft, utilizing the broad capabilities of its M365 E3 platform with its E5 safety add-on, in comparison with choosing particular person options from a number of main enterprise safety distributors, together with Crowdstrike, OKTA and Proofpoint.
The analysis consisted of value evaluation, technical comparisons, and conversations with senior IT decision-makers to know a few of the standards they used when evaluating know-how.
Our evaluation confirmed that technically and commercially, Microsoft’s instruments and companies provide a pretty single-vendor proposition. Nevertheless, it additionally uncovered that, whereas this was the case, there was additionally a pervading perspective from quite a few CxOs, that not solely was Microsoft not their main alternative, however for some, they’d not even contemplate Microsoft as a safety companion.
That raised the query as as to whether Microsoft did, the truth is, current a powerful sufficient proposition to be a single safety companion for an enterprise and whether or not it was potential to beat the considerations of CxOs. To try to reply these questions, we wished to assessment our analysis and convey a recent CxO perspective to it. To try this, we enrolled our personal CTO, Howard Holton, to offer extra CxO perception into the outcomes of our work.
The analysis round Microsoft as a safety companion
The purpose of this put up is to not share all of the analysis. It’s to offer a abstract of our findings which can assist reply a few of the questions decision-makers would ask when evaluating a single-vendor versus multi-vendor method for cybersecurity instruments and companies.
Analysis scope
Earlier than offering that abstract, it’s helpful to stipulate the scope of our analysis. It is very important observe that this was not a hands-on technical analysis, detailed performance testing, or TCO evaluation. The scope of the analysis was to offer a C-level briefing that appeared on the following;
- Resolution capabilities
- Excessive-level value evaluation
- Different operational overhead/enterprise dangers
We evaluated these areas to know whether or not the single-vendor versus multi-vendor method might;
- Scale back complexity
- Scale back value
- Keep/improve safety
We utilized these questions throughout a number of enterprise safety challenges. The Microsoft E5 Safety Add-on covers every of those areas, and we in contrast that to the seller listed in every class;
- Endpoint together with cell – Crowdstrike
- Identification Administration – Okta
- E mail Safety together with BEC, phishing safety, virus, and malware protection – Proofpoint
- MFA and adaptive entry controls – Okta/Proofpoint
- Instruments to watch menace and failure – Crowdstrike
- Knowledge Loss Prevention and Related Knowledge Safety Applied sciences – Proofpoint
- Cloud Utility Safety/Cloud Entry Service Dealer – Proofpoint
These areas precisely mirror the important thing safety focus we discover in all kinds of organizations. Due to this fact, evaluating the aptitude of any instrument towards them was a helpful method to evaluate options and functionality, their value, and whether or not they would meet the wants of a company’s fashionable safety calls for.
The professionals and cons of Microsoft as a safety companion
Microsoft’s E3 + E5 Safety add-on gives a complete vary of safety instruments for customers of its Microsoft 365 and Azure companies. Its breadth of functionality would offer a company with wide-reaching safety and complete safety by way of a single vendor.
The Microsoft Safety Toolset
Microsoft’s safety protection is broad and cut up throughout quite a few core service suites. This contains;
- Microsoft Defender for EDR, anti-virus, Cloud App safety, anti-phishing, and knowledge loss prevention throughout desktop, server, Mac, cell, and naturally, Cloud
- Microsoft Entra offers id safety
- Alternate On-line Safety defends towards phishing and BEC and gives malware safety
This vary of safety instruments is tightly built-in into Microsoft Azure and M365 to offer clients with a complete, seamless safety expertise. For these clients, the analysis highlighted that the only vendor, single platform method reduces each technical and business complexity, making a compelling safety providing.
Why have been CxO’s not embracing Microsoft’s compelling providing?
Whereas Microsoft did make a powerful single-vendor case, why did potential clients and their safety decision-makers meet this with the view that “Microsoft just isn’t even a consideration” when evaluating safety options and companions?
Causes for not selecting Microsoft
What have been a few of the key causes we found?
- I don’t need to spend much more with Microsoft.
- Whereas the options are broad, I don’t consider their capabilities are nearly as good as specialist distributors.
- I are not looking for all my safety eggs in a single basket.
- The pricing of migration from my present suppliers is critical.
- Can they supply me with hands-on menace response help?
- Is their menace response instrument one thing I might reclaim by way of my cyber insurance coverage?
Are these legitimate considerations?
Whereas all considerations are legitimate throughout our analysis, we discovered proof that could possibly be used to assist reply a few of them. This doesn’t imply the considerations are flawed, however they supply extra context which will alter a possible buyer’s notion.
I don’t need to spend extra with Microsoft
There are good business the reason why this can be the case. We did additionally discover that there was a really sturdy monetary case made for the single-vendor method.
Based mostly on printed pricing, our analysis noticed potential financial savings near 80% when utilizing the Microsoft E5 safety add-on in comparison with utilizing three particular person distributors*. Whereas there could also be business causes to not spend extra with Microsoft, it is a important determine, and one that ought to make for nearer examination, particularly the place budgets are underneath ever-increasing strain.
Microsoft’s capabilities are not so good as specialist distributors
This can be a complicated query, and because the analysis was not based mostly on performance testing, it was not definitively answered right here. Nevertheless, now we have present in different GigaOm analysis that Microsoft’s capabilities rating extremely in our security-based studies.
It also needs to be thought-about that the single-vendor method will cut back the complexity that a number of distributors can create. We additionally found that Microsoft’s E5 method is extraordinarily complete and stuffed gaps that have been left by the a number of main distributors we additionally evaluated.
I are not looking for a single vendor
The worth of utilizing a number of best-of-breed distributors has benefits. To know if that may be a legitimate concern in any given occasion, you will need to perceive why the multi-vendor method is most popular and what it gives {that a} single vendor can not. We discovered Microsoft’s method technically and commercially engaging. Our findings actually made a case for the re-appraisal of the only vendor method in these cases.
Value of migration
This can be a sturdy and legitimate concern. As IT budgets stay strained, migration prices might deliver unwelcome extra strain. This could not imply it shouldn’t be thought-about, as there are probably long-term financial savings available. Nevertheless, organizations ought to examine the size of this return to establish its viability.
Menace response and cyber insurance coverage
One of many main questions raised when evaluating Microsoft with different main distributors was its functionality to offer menace response if a cyber incident ought to happen. Whereas Microsoft can certainly cowl menace response, we discovered service definitions and prices much less clear throughout our analysis than these of rivals reminiscent of Crowdstrike.
An extra concern was whether or not they could be coated underneath cyber insurance coverage when participating in such companies. Each considerations are important and would require full readability when evaluating adopting or altering or single safety vendor method.
What have been the three key benefits we found?
In exploring this with GigaOm’s CTO Howard Holton, we found a number of key benefits of the only vendor method that the diligent tech evaluator ought to contemplate. None of this stuff is to say Microsoft or any single vendor is the precise reply, however there’s a case to discover, and as Howard talked about on the finish of our analysis, “not less than we’d have Microsoft within the dialog”.
- Value discount: the potential right here is critical. Whereas it ought to by no means be the principle criterion, it’s a consideration in a world of under-pressure budgets. Our comparability of Microsoft’s E3/E5 Add-on versus an amalgamated main vendor method confirmed potential financial savings within the area of 80%*. After all, in the true world, clients are unlikely to pay full printed costs, however the saving potential does exist and have to be thought-about.
- Complexity discount: Complexity is the enemy of safety. The extra merchandise a company tries to deliver collectively, the extra complicated it turns into to safe, the upper the operational overhead, and the extra doubtless there will probably be safety gaps. Microsoft is extraordinarily sturdy right here, if not excellent. Their options are managed from its single M365 platform however not essentially in a single console. It offers consistency of safety coverage and process throughout the platform. And, after all, the breadth of the platform ensures detailed insights and analytics from throughout a company are made out there to assist with menace investigation and searching. That is additionally augmented by each automated incident response and, extra lately, the additions of managed response by way of Microsoft Safety Consultants. This isn’t unimaginable to realize with third-party distributors, particularly those we checked out right here, who share a spread of tight product integrations that share intelligence to offer broad safety insights, nevertheless it does take extra work.
- Improved Safety: This one is much less clear. There isn’t a doubt that the breadth of protection and capabilities Microsoft offers can actually assist enhance safety posture, particularly for these utilizing E5 to fill current gaps. The E5 license gives a powerful answer, particularly for these deeply invested in Microsoft’s cloud platforms. Nevertheless, it’s much less clear whether or not these already invested in different instruments would see the identical enhancements. Whereas in some instances, Microsoft will ship parity and even function enchancment, there will probably be many instances the place best-of-breed rivals do issues Microsoft doesn’t. Safety have to be the principle criterion in these instances, no matter potential value financial savings.
Closing ideas
In reply to the query we posed on this put up, the reply is sure, Microsoft could possibly be a single safety supplier for a company. Nevertheless, not for all. Whereas it offers stable safety capabilities at a really engaging worth, there are gaps. In actuality, Microsoft’s method is just going to be efficient for these with a powerful funding and strategic dedication to Microsoft Azure and M365 already.
There, after all, would be the comparability of capabilities. Specialist distributors are, on the very least, perceived to offer “higher” safety capabilities than Microsoft’s native instruments and, in lots of instances, present issues Microsoft don’t. The concept Microsoft offers “adequate” safety is true, nevertheless it mustn’t have damaging connotations. Ok safety is precisely that, adequate to fulfill wants. Nevertheless, organizations should completely consider whether or not any potential options meet their wants.
More and more organizations additionally want companies to reinforce their inside sources. Distributors like Crowdstrike provide complete skilled companies with menace and incident response groups. Microsoft does provide this, however the full path of its Safety Consultants service and the way that can evaluate is unclear. This will probably be an important consideration.
This analysis confirmed us {that a} single vendor, particularly Microsoft, could make a powerful case when it comes to functionality, efficacy and value. They may both change into a single vendor filling safety portfolio gaps, and even substitute different distributors in some cases.
Nevertheless, we additionally famous that best-of-breed market-leading options are perceived as that for a motive, and that value alone should not be the one criterion for changing them.
What was actually true for individuals who take the time to completely consider Microsoft’s capabilities, as our CTO Howard Holton identified, it ought to not less than make Microsoft a part of the dialogue.
Word
*Our worth comparisons have been based mostly on a 5000-user enterprise, 10,000 units evaluating M365 E3 plus E5 safety versus Crowdstrike, Okta and Proofpoint as a part of Crowdstrike’s Spectra Alliance offering the identical safety protection. Based mostly on printed checklist worth comparisons, analysis confirmed a 77% saving utilizing Microsoft’s instruments in comparison with an built-in method utilizing the three main distributors confirmed.
This didn’t embody any discount in operational value, as this was outdoors of the scope of this analysis. Nevertheless, it ought to be famous that in earlier analysis, wanting on the influence of safety instrument consolidation, now we have seen reductions in operational prices of 3-7 occasions.
